5
The Chairman welcomed Rob Parkinson, Development Control Manager, to the meeting. The Chairman reported that the Committee would hold a minutes silence at 6 pm to mark the sad passing of Captain Sir Tom Moore and to remember all those who had sadly lost their lives to Covid19.
The Committee received and considered the report from the Senior Planning Officer.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the proposal is for the provision of up to 150 dwellings on 4.26 hectares, the accompanying Masterplan indicates structured landscaped open space including the provision of a green corridor, play space, publicly accessible open space and sustainable urban drainage on 4.09 hectares. The overall density would be 35 dwelling units per hectare. A mixture of dwelling sizes and tenures is proposed, including 50% affordable housing. Supporting materials submitted with the application refer to the standards anticipated to be accommodated in any new residential development such as open space and play space, and the applicant expresses a willingness to meet community infrastructure requirements to mitigate the impact of the development. No information has been provided to demonstrate how the development could provide the indicated percentage of affordable housing.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that vehicular access is shown off a new access off Yarmouth Road towards the middle of the site, south of the petrol filling station opposite the allotment gardens. A bicycle and pedestrian access point would be located at the NW corner
of the site.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the following supporting information has been submitted with the application:
Planning Supporting Statement, Statement of Community Involvement, Design and Access Statement, Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy, Residential Travel Plan, Transport Assessment, Preliminary Ecological Appraisal, Shadow Habitats Regulations Assessment and a Desk Based Archaeological Assessment and a Preliminary Contamination Assessment
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Hemsby Parish Council objected to the application for the following reasons:
The site is mainly on Grade 1 agricultural land; development could set a precedent to develop the opposite side of Yarmouth Road; the road is extensively used by visitors in the summer, slowing and turning in & in combination with the petrol filling station could be hazardous; impact on residential amenity; adequacy of sewerage system in the vicinity; potential conflict
between pedestrians and vehicles on Yarmouth Road where there is no footway; over-development of the village; change in character of land from rural to developed.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that at the time of writing 33 representations have been received summarised as follows:
Support for affordable housing (1 representation), Inadequate infrastructure to support more housing, schools, doctors, social services, water and sewerage capacity, Site is outside the village envelope, loss of Grade 1 agricultural land, loss of green space, rural character.
Housing has been approved for re-development at the former Pontin's holiday centre, the village doesn’t need more houses for at least 5 years, Yarmouth Road is busy in summer, traffic generation and new access impact on safe road use for visitors, no footways hazardous for pedestrians and cyclists. Hemsby is a holiday destination, more development will spoil the character, and have a negative impact on quality of life. Insufficient shops, services, no senior school and employment in village mean householders will have to make journeys. Increase flood risk on Newport Road.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the Borough Core Strategy seeks to support
sustainable development, which is environmentally, economically and socially beneficial. In this the Borough has planned and identified more than enough residential developments sites to meet its obligations for then designated plan period. The site lies outside of the Hemsby Development Boundary in the adopted local plan where new residential development will only be permitted in exceptional situations. With a resident population of approximately 3,000 Hemsby is identified in policy CS2 of the Core Strategy as a Primary Village settlement with a small range of services and opportunities for employment, retail and education. It serves a limited local catchment and contains a lower level of access to public transport. In this case the site is located on a road having bus service it is within walking distance of the primary school, doctors’ surgery, small supermarket and post office located in the village centre.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that Norfolk County Council have advised that Hemsby Primary School will likely be at capacity as a result of development of this site and other sites within the vicinity. Norfolk County Council advise that Hemsby Primary School cannot be
expanded on its existing site to accommodate new pupils arising from the developments. As a result, it is likely that new pupils arising from this development may have to travel to schools in Ormesby. This reduces the sustainability of this location for further development.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that whilst it may be argued the site is in a reasonably sustainable location, it is not necessary to develop the property contrary to the Development Plan. It is considered that to do so is not economically, socially or environmentally beneficial at this time. A major residential site has been allocated in the emerging Local Plan for 190 dwellings at the former Pontin's Holiday Centre. That site has planning permission and can be delivered in a 5- year timescale. The National Planning Policy Framework puts significant weight on the deliverability of housing developments and requires local planning authorities to identify a five-year supply of deliverable sites. Where a five year supply cannot be demonstrated the NPPF states that policies in the development plan, including those which are most important for determining applications, are treated as being out-of-date meaning that speculative applications for housing developments could be permitted where they would usually be contrary to development plan. In this case as of December 2020 the Borough has a supply of 6.71 years so the development is not needed.
The Planning Officer reported that Policy CS11 seeks to safeguard and enhance the natural environment. The development of 150 houses would add undue recreational pressure on vulnerable habitat sites protected for conservation. The policy seeks to protect high quality agricultural land. The larger part of the site is designated Grade 1 agricultural land. Policy CS12 also seeks to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land as a valuable resource for future generations. Given a sufficient housing supply is deliverable elsewhere in the borough including in Hemsby, it is not necessary to sterilise this current asset.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that studies and assessments will likely show that by means of appropriate engineering and technical solutions, development can be serviced
at the site. However, it is not necessary to do so at this time. The development of the site is premature to the need of the community. It is not necessary to add additional pressure on local schools or health care facilities. Hemsby is a primary holiday destination in the
borough, it is not necessary to develop the site with the associated disturbance to residents and visitors. Visitors are the main driver of the local economy.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that information submitted with the application states it is the applicant’s intention to provide 50% affordable housing (75 houses) in the development. However, no evidence is provided of how that can be achieved or is viable in relation to the costs of providing infrastructure, roads, utilities, surface water drainage, sewers, without which little weight should be given. In the case of any planning permission the subject of a Section 106 agreement, a monitoring fee of £500 per obligation shall be required to be paid by the applicant as a requirement of the agreement.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that the application is recommended for refusal. In this case the site adjoins but is beyond the existing built up settlement limits, it is of a rural character supporting an equestrian use that could normally be anticipated in a countryside location. The village has a range of services, including a doctor’s surgery and a primary school. The site is with half a mile of the village centre and a bus stop is located at the northern end of the site. The adopted Core Strategy seeks to provide approximately 30% of
the boroughs housing requirement in primary settlements such as Hemsby and has allocated a site for 190 houses to the north at the former Pontins Holiday Centre, planning permission has also been granted for that site. In accordance with central government planning policy, the Council has an obligation to be able to demonstrate a 5-year Housing supply. As of
December 2020, the Council can demonstrate a supply of 6.71 years. The housing requirement for borough can be met and exceeded by the number of deliverable dwellings from existing planning permissions and from those allocations in the emerging Local Plan Part 2. No information has been submitted with this application to demonstrate the deliverability of the housing proposed within a 5-year period. No information has been provided as to how 50% of the housing would be affordable. Further, at time of writing this report the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to rule out significant effect
from associated recreation on protected habitats. The proposal involves the permanent development of grade 1 agricultural land. Accordingly, it is considered that the development of the site would be an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside and place additional recreational pressure on protected habitats.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that it is recommended that the application is refused as being contrary to the Development Plan. The proposal is contrary to saved Policy HOU10 of and the Great Yarmouth Borough-wide Local Plan (2001) (LP), also Policies CS1, CS11 and CS12 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan: Core Strategy and Policies GSP1 and H13 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2.
Councillor Fairhead asked if the information requested by the Broads IDB regarding a site investigation had been forthcoming. The Senior Planning Officer reported that the request involved the infiltration capacity of the ground in relation to surface water greenfield run-off rate and that this would form part of the Reserved Matters application.
Mr Peter Atkin, applicant's agent, addressed the Committee and reported the salient areas of the application and urged the Committee to approve the application.
Councillor Wainwright asked Mr Atkin in regard to the proposed 50% affordable housing provision on the site. Mr Atkin reported that he had written to the Planning Department and offered 50 % affordable housing as part of the s106 agreement for the site had given details of the interested Housing Associations. However, they had only been given two days notice that the application would be going to Committee and it was not possible to submit the required viability report in time.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that as per the report, a viability report regarding the provision of affordable housing had not been received and that the applicant had requested that the application be taken to the earliest planning committee for determination.
Mrs Hannah Gray, objector, reported her objections and those of other residents to the Committee as she was a member of the Hemsby Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group. She asked the committee to refuse the application which would be detrimental to the residents of Hemsby.
Mr Keith Kyriako, Chairman of Hemsby Parish Council, reported that the Parish Council were strongly against the proposed development and that 605 local residents had signed a petition against the application.
Councillor Galer, Ward Councillor, reported that he was a member of the Broads IDB but that he did not see any direct conflict so would not declare a personal interest. Councillor Galer reported that he represented the views of the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group, the Parish Council and his Ward Parishioners and opposed the application. The application was not warranted as the Borough had a 5 year land supply.
Councillor P Hammond reported his concerns that the application site often flooded following heavy rain.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that further advice from the Highways Authority had been received today regarding the application.
Councillor Wainwright proposed that the application be refused. This was seconded by Councillor Mogford.
RESOLVED:-
That application number 06/20/0562/O be refused. In this case the site adjoins but is beyond the existing built up settlement limits, it is of a rural character supporting an equestrian use that could normally be anticipated in a countryside location. The village has a range of services, including a doctor’s surgery and a primary school. The site is with half a mile of the village centre and a bus stop is located at the northern end of the site. The adopted Core Strategy seeks to provide approximately 30% of the boroughs housing requirement in primary settlements such as Hemsby and has allocated a site for 190 houses to the north at the former Pontins Holiday Centre, planning permission has also been granted for that site. In accordance with central government planning policy, the Council has an obligation to be able to demonstrate a 5-year Housing supply. As of December 2020, the Council can demonstrate a supply of 6.71 years. The housing requirement for borough can be met and exceeded by the number of deliverable dwellings from existing planning permissions and from those allocations in the emerging Local Plan Part 2. No information has been submitted with this application to demonstrate the deliverability of the housing proposed within a 5-year period. No information has been provided as to how 50% of the housing would be affordable. Further, at time of writing this report the applicant has not provided sufficient evidence to rule out significant effect from associated recreation on protected habitats. The proposal involves the permanent development of grade 1 agricultural land. Accordingly, it is considered that the development of the site would be an unwarranted intrusion in the countryside and place additional recreational pressure on protected habitats.
The Senior Planning Officer reported that it is recommended that the application is refused as being contrary to the Development Plan. The proposal is contrary to saved Policy HOU10 of and the Great Yarmouth Borough-wide Local Plan (2001) (LP), also Policies CS1, CS11 and CS12 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan: Core Strategy and Policies GSP1 and H13 of the Great Yarmouth Local Plan Part 2.